Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
At 09:21 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote:
Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual.
Remember that there's a major difference between "corporations" and "business"; you seem to be mixing them up. A corporation is a legal fiction that treats a cooperative effort by one or more people as if it were a person in itself, and normally involves limiting the liability of the corporation's investors by putting it all on the fictional person. A business is what one or more people do to make money. Most corporations are businesses, though not all. Governments can legitimately tell corporations what to do because that's part of the price of the legal fiction; a government can't abuse a corporation because you can't beat up a legal fiction, though it can say "Poof! You're not a legal fiction any more", and conversely, if the people who own the legal fiction don't like what the government's telling it to do, they can dissolve it. (Governments also enjoy regulating non-corporate businesses, but they're no longer on solid moral ground.)
I have also not suggested some form of prior restraint that would require government access to computers. I simply suggest that should a violation occur, that I have the right of civil and criminal law as a recourse to both compensate me for my loss of privacy as well as deter future damage. A company knowing that civil and criminal penalties could result from a violation would take extra care to ensure the security of my data.
How are you going to _know_ that a "violation" occurred, if company A tells company B your address or favorite liquor? Only by having access to the records of both companies. Getting that through the courts, for only the parts of their information relevant to you, is better than blanket permission for the government to rummage through their files, but after the first lawsuit lets investigators in, everything they've got is clam bait anyway. It's still major privacy violation - for the company whose machines are being violated, and for the non-suing individuals whose data is also on those machines. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com / billstewart@attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs
On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:
How are you going to _know_ that a "violation" occurred, if company A tells company B your address or favorite liquor? Only by having access to the records of both companies. Getting that through the courts, for only the parts of their information relevant to you, is better than blanket permission for the government to rummage through their files, but after the first lawsuit lets investigators in, everything they've got is clam bait anyway. It's still major privacy violation - for the company whose machines are being violated, and for the non-suing individuals whose data is also on those machines.
I agree that this is a problem but I still feel that an individual should have more rights than a corporation. It is true that there is a possiblity of the owners of the corporation may have their rights diminished, but you have to balance this against the protection that they get by being incorporated. Either the files belong to the corporation or they belong to the owner or shareholders. If they belong to the corporation, the individual wins the rights contest. If I follow your scenario, one need only form a corporation to avoid responsibility for any violations of the law. I wish to reiterate here and now, that I am NOT advocating government access to computers or files. I am simply suggesting that data corporations should be required to take responsibility for the data that is in their care. If they do not take such care, they should be subject to sanction. Regards, Tim Philp
participants (2)
-
Bill Stewart -
Tim Philp